Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 21050/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,61365) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KISLAYA v. UKRAINE
(englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 02.05.2007 - 21050/02
- EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 21050/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 18966/02
VOYTENKO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 21050/02
The Court recalls its case-law that the impossibility for an applicant to obtain the enforcement of a judgment in his or her favour constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003 and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).The Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, whereby she could have obtained a ruling upholding her right to have her claims finally settled within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see e.g. Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 46-48, 29 June 2004 and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 64, 18 July 2006).
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 21050/02
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 41510/98
JASIUNIENE v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 21050/02
The Court recalls its case-law that the impossibility for an applicant to obtain the enforcement of a judgment in his or her favour constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003 and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).